Thread: True Debate #6: jfuh vs rebelbuc

This true debate is between jfuh and rebelbuc. The topic is anthropogenic global warming. Jfuh's position is that anthropogenic global warming is scientific fact; rebelbuc is taking the opposing stance. The participants have elected to PM their opening statements to me; both will be posted as soon as both have been received. Whoever posts their placeholder post (just a post for me to insert their opening statement into) first will get the first response. This debate will last for two weeks, until November 6, unless the participants decide to end it sooner or extend it.

My Position:
I believe that anthropogenic, or man made, climate change is not a scientifically proven fact and that any significant changes in global climate that have been observed over the last 100 years are manifestations of the natural cycles of the earth and the sun.

Science and Politics
True Debate Rules and Guidelines state in item #5 that debate topics “must somehow be political in nature”. It is precisely the political distortion of natural climate change that makes this topic worth debating. Al Gore has led the unsubstantiated charge that “the climate change debate is over”, however, he and others’ contentions about climate change have neither obtained true scientific consensus nor invited true scientific peer review on this issue. In fact, there have been indications that Gore and his cronies have taken steps to silence opponents and undermine scientific peer reviews when they clash with his assertions. Dr. Richard Lindzen, Harvard-trained, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, provided examples of intimidation that he and colleagues have experienced that he attributes to Gore and IPCC members. Gore has continually refused challenges to publicly debate on climate change issues.
Source:Lindzen

Gore was already off to a disingenuous start when, in his 1992 book, Earth in the Balance, Gore credited Harvard professor Dr. Roger Revelle as the man who originally influenced his views on the dangers of global warming. Dr. Revelle had produced papers earlier in his career that questioned the relationship between rising CO2 levels and global temperature. However, Dr. Revelle significantly moderated his views later in life as is evident in a paper that he co-authored in April 1991, What to Do about Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap.
Source: Revelle

This paper did not declare scientific consensus and suggested that further scientific study was needed. Dr. Revelle died three months after co-authoring the paper, but Gore took the opportunity to use his name in his 1992 book in order to increase Gore’s scientific credibility (my opinion). Later attempts were made to pressure Dr. Revelle’s co-author, Dr. S. Fred Singer, to take the Revelle name off of the controversial paper. It apparently did not sit well with Gore that the guru who he credited with enlightening him in the science of global warming did not share the most radical views of which Gore boasted so proudly. None of this kept Gore from referring to Dr. Revelle in his 2006 movie, An Inconvenient Truth, although Gore’s aggressive plan to address global warming has little in common with the last views expressed by Dr. Revelle only months before his death. This example demonstrates a typical method employed by anthropogenic climate change advocates, cherry picking specific data and ignoring contradictory facts in order to present a believable argument to support their view.
Source: Singer

Global Temperature Historical Data
Figure 1, Global temperature estimates since 900 AD, are represented in the link below. Source: Global Temperature Historical Data

This time/temperature chart was included in the 1990 and 1995 reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to represent the last 1100 years (Figure 7.1 IPCC 1990). This chart provides estimated historical temperatures for that time period. Note that the dotted line represents conditions near the beginning of the 20th century and also note the occurrence of significant temperature variations that comprise the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA). The executive summary of chapter 7 of the IPCC 1990 report admitted that: “Because we do not understand the reasons for these past warming events, it is not yet possible to attribute a specific proportion of the recent, smaller warming to an increase of greenhouse gases.” Shaopeng Huang, Henry N. Pollack, and Po Yu Shen, in their paper Late Quaternary Temperature Changes Seen in Worldwide Continental Heat Flow Measurements, (published in Geophysical Research Letters in 1997) showed data that substantiated the existence of the MWP and LIA.
Source: Huang, Pollack, and Shen

Sunspots and Global Warming
Many scientists believe that there is a correlation between the yearly average number of sunspots and the average global temperature since sunspot activity is an indication of the heat output of the sun. Greater numbers of sunspots result in greater heat output of the sun. Historical sunspot observations have been made over the last 400 years and these measurements compare favorably to the historical average global temperature chart. However, the comparison is not exact and it has been suggested that surface winds, ocean currents, earth orbit/rotation, and other variables contribute to produce temperature variations. The Maunder Minimum is the name given to the absence of sunspot activity during the period from the mid-17th century to the mid-18th century. The reduced heat output of the sun before, during, and after the Maunder Minimum has been attributed as a likely contributor to the Little Ice Age. Note the historical sunspot chart on the source link.
Source: Maunder Minimum

The Justifiably Maligned “Hockey Stick” Graph
Dr. Michael E. Mann of the University of Massachusetts Department of Geosciences produced what has become known as the “hockey stick” graph. The so-called hockey stick graph was presented in the IPCC 2001 report and later in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. The hockey stick graph was lauded in the late 1990s and after 2000 as one of the most damning pieces of evidence to quiet the voices of anthropogenic global warming skeptics. The inclusion of the hockey stick graph and the omission of the previously twice used historical temperature graph that included the MWP and LIA indicated that the IPCC apparently changed directions with their 2001 report and modified their global warming story. The hockey stick graph showed an unprecedented and alarming 20th century temperature rise that was produced by using dubious computer techniques to massage data that resulted in discarding and ignoring the historically proven Medieval Warming Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA). Mann's hockey stick graph can be seen in the next link. Huang’s, Pollack’s, and Shen’s Late Quaternary Temperature Changes Seen in Worldwide Continental Heat Flow Measurements (link was provided above) produced data that contradicts the temperature history provided by the hockey stick graph. Ross McKitrick’s April 4, 2005 paper, What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About? provides an analysis that questions Mann’s methods used in producing the hockey stick graph.
Source: McIntyre and Ross

Many accomplished scientists took issue with Dr. Mann’s hockey stick graph for several reasons:
(1) The graph estimates northern hemisphere temperature data over approximately 1000 years based on the analysis of tree rings.
-The tree ring data is not generally accepted by many scientists who disagree with Dr. Mann’s methods based on several issues, including data manipulation methods.
-Tree ring measurements in Dr. Mann’s graph are interwoven with actual temperature readings from the 20th century. This is considered by many as comparing apples and oranges as the tree ring measurement method of estimating historical temperature is controversial at best.
(2) Dr. Mann’s hockey stick graph totally ignores and attempts to refute the existence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA) that were documented in previous IPCC reports and has been proven as factual by numerous studies.
- Both the MWP and LIA are documented historical facts.
- Scientific studies have shown that the effects of the MWP and LIA extended around the world and were not isolated events in either Europe or the northern hemisphere.
(3) Dr. Mann’s original 1999 Hockey Stick Graph originally addressed northern hemisphere temperatures and included wide error margins (gray areas), however, a subsequent, modified version of the hockey stick graph had the gray error margins removed and indicated that Mann’s data represented historical global temperature trends.
- It’s interesting, and telling, I believe, that those gray error margins coincide with the historical presence of the MWP. The existence of the MWP and LIA tends to refute Mann's work!

The revised hockey stick graph is avaliable at the following link:
Source: Revised Hockey Stick

Dissenting Scientists

IPCC Dissent Identified by Roger Helmer Mep
Roger Helmer Mep said it best in the quote below and the full text is available on the next link.

A startling new revelation from the UN's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) blows apart the myth of scientific unanimity. New information suddenly revealed by the IPCC, apparently to pre-empt embarrassing disclosures under Freedom of Information laws, shows that significant numbers of the panel of 2,500 climate scientists - usually described as "unanimous" in their support of man-made global warming - have registered serious concerns, which the IPCC serially rejects even while claiming a "consensus". It is becoming obvious that this climate-change consensus is a journalistic fiction.

Source: Dissent

Global Warming Petition Project
Over 31,000 scientists so far have signed the following petition between 1998 and 2008:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Source: Global Warming Petition Project

Unreliability of Climate Change Models
Climate change models cannot even predict the trend thus far in the 21st century, so why should anyone expect them to be accurate 30, 40 or 50 years from now? The chart below extends the blue and green lines (actual temperatures measured by ground-based and satellite systems) to show the inaccuracy of the IPCC projections from 2000. Since actual CO2 emissions have actually accelerated since the IPCC made this projection, one might draw the conclusion that something other than CO2 emissions is driving global temperature variations.

The graph in the link below, courtesy of atmospheric scientist John Christy, shows how climate models and reality diverge. The red, purple, and orange lines are model forecasts of global temperatures under different emission scenarios. The yellow line shows how much warming we are supposedly “committed to” even if CO2 concentrations don’t change. The blue and green lines are actual temperatures as measured by ground-based (HadCrut) and satellite (UAH LT) monitoring systems.
Soruce: Updating IPCC AR4

Arctic Sea Ice in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres
April 2008 sea ice, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center have shown the following:
- Northern hemisphere sea ice extent, while below the 1979 – 2000 mean, has increased over the previous 4 years and is back close to 2003 levels.
- Southern hemisphere sea ice extent is significantly above the 1979 – 2000 mean and was the largest sea ice extent in April over the 30 year historical period.
Source: Arctic Sea Ice


Pre-Historical Relationship Between Atmospheric CO2 and Average Global Temperatures
The chart above was based on studies that estimated atmospheric CO2 and average global temperature from the Late Carboniferous to the Early Permian time. There is not a strong correlation to indicate wild temperature swings based on variations in atmospheric CO2. These findings lead one to question the present day alarmists who are attributing CO2 increases to future catastrophic climate change.
Source: Atmospheric CO2 vs. Temperature

Recent Temperature Measurements
Some individuals and scientists have pointed out in blogs and articles over the last few years that global temperature averages have been skewed in the direction of greater global warming due to “weather station bias”, for lack of a better term:
- shutdowns of Siberian (i.e. cold climate) weather stations after the USSR ceased to exist
- urban heat island effect overpowering previously rural weather stations
- obvious poor placement of weather stations that result in unrepresentative temperature data

Conclusion:
Those climate change alarmists who focus on the future catastrophic effects of global warming have not had things go their way since about 2001. Global average temperatures have seemingly peaked somewhere around 2000 or 2001 (if not sooner, during the 1990s). Many scientists have offered the possibility that, instead of global warming, the greatest climate change concern on the horizon is global cooling. Such cooling could result in various possibilities: (1) merely longer, colder winters, (2) another Little Ice Age where winters could be very severe in some locations, or (3) another major ice age. Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, is one of several accomplished scientists who believes that recent minimal sunspot activity, among other things, indicates that global cooling is more likely than global warming.
Source: Watts
Source: Sorokhtin
Source: Global Research

Global warming is not a new concept. Without global warming - which in the broader scientific point of view is simply the greenhouse effect - life as we know it would be virtually impossible on this planet.
So what is the greenhouse effect; as the name implies in greenhouse it is having a system that retains solar radiation in the form of infrared or heat so as to insulate itself from harsh environment. For the earth that would be the atmosphere shielding us from the harsh extremes of space.
The composition of the atmosphere is which determines the level of greenhouse effect on a planet. On mars with a smaller mass and a far thinner atmosphere, there is not enough greenhouse effect.
On Venus the exact opposite is true, there is too much greenhouse effect that actually feeds back on itself establishing a "runaway" greenhouse effect.
So we see from these two planets as well as our own of the importance of the composition of the atmosphere with regards to the greenhouse effect.
What is a greenhouse gas? A greenhouse gas is a gas that absorbs and retains the radiative energy from infra red and translating into kinetic rotation, vibration and translation of the covalent bonds between atoms in a molecule (precisely what happens in a microwave in regards to water heating up the food).
This kinetic energy can then be re-emitted as infrared again.
Water vapor is the number one greenhouse gas on our planet both in it's ability to retain or literally reflect solar radiation back onto the planet and the significant quantity/concentration it is within the atmosphere. However water vapor has a very short atmospheric half life and thus poses no long term significance as a greenhouse gas.
Second to water vapor is carbon dioxide - which leads to the very concept of anthropogenic global warming.

Let me make one key clarification, there is no argument whatsoever about global warming - there is absolutely no debate whatsoever about global warming - the only debate of relationship is the political debate about anthropogenic global warming.
Anthropogenic global warming is the theory that man's burning of fossil fuels which generates carbon dioxide increases the net quantity of said gas within the atmosphere. Owning to the fact that changes in greenhouse gas composition within the atmosphere leads to variances in the atmosphere's heat retention ability it stands then to reason that anthropogenic changing of this composition will lead to an enhanced global warming that leads to climate change.

Herein then lays the complexity of my opponents challenge to which I have to prove.

1. We are seeing anthropogenic global warming today
2. Anthropogenic global warming is an established scientific fact.

I must clarify, I am NOT putting forth any argument of how significant or how much an impact AGW will have on our climate as there is no scientific consensus on this matter. I will only use the following to allude to that probability. In geological past, the difference of but 100ppm in CO2 within the atmosphere translated to the difference between warm life friendly climate to an ice age.

We are seeing anthropogenic global warming today


The greenhouse effect is what retains heat - like a blanket. However like a blanket without a heat source it will not warm on it's own.
All of earths energy (minus radioactive decay) comes from the sun. The energy for global warming is no exception. In the past the proximity of the earth to the sun is the likely culprit of warming/glaciation. Earth's orbit around the sun is not a circle, not only so its rotaional axis points at an angle from the solar equator, as a result, the eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of Earth's orbit varies in what are called Milankovitch cycles - aka orbital wobble. It is this wobble that is believed to be the instigator of global warming and cooling in the past though that "initialization" is not entirely solid scientifically.
What is established scientifically however is that once the warming stages reached a certain concentration of greenhouse gases within the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect took over and positively fed back into the system to make global temperatures significantly warmer (as evidenced by ice core sampling).source
In our recent historical past of the geological warmth of the planet has remained relatively constant. Even taking into such events as the little ice age or midevil warm period the earth's climate was in all other accounts stable with greenhouse gases at near constant levels.
However upon the industrial revolution, and the consumption of fossil fuels on a never before seen magnitude, man's contribution to atmospheric composition has become significant.
It must be made crystal clear. Man is NOT the number 1 contributor of greenhouse gases. Nature is the number one contributor of greenhouse gases orders of magnitude greater than man.
But there is a catch, while nature is the number one contributor of, it is also capable of cleaning up after itself. So as much as nature releases greenhouse gases it also sequesters said gases contributing a neutral contribution - which is why prior to the industrial revolution greenhouse gases have been relatively constant in concentration.
Anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases however are not re-captured and sequestered thus resulting in a net increase on top of what nature already produces. It is this net increase that the scientific and environmental community concerns itself with when talking about anthropogenic global warming.

This concept can be best summarized by use of this graph.

Nature feeds back on itself. The smoke stacks contribution (representative of anthropogenic emission) is NOT in equilibrium with the rest of the carbon cycle, thus resulting in the net incriment of carbon in the form of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.
And since the industrial revolution our use of said fuels has only increased at exponential levels and today the concentration of CO2 is the highest it's ever been in 650'000 years.
If we look at the actual global temperature changes.
Enter the hockey stick graph V2.0 (this is not the '98 hockey stick graph that various critics have critisized for poor proxy use)


The significance is the initiatialization of rise in global temperatures towards the end of the 1700's the begining of the industrial revolution.
If I super impose temperature record with that of carbon dioxide concentration of the last thousand years what we see is strong correlation.
Source

Which brings me to forcings.
As we see in the graph above temperatures and carbon dioxide both rise at virtually the same level. What is also significant about this graph is of solar activity. The sun goes through 11 year cycles of sunspot activity that very directly impact global temperatures annually. Again, the sun is the primary source of energy on our planet so it's no surprise that solar activity level would have such an impact.
However, if you take note, since 1800's solar activity has been virtually constant. So it is unreasonable to assume that a constant would have an incrimental effect.
In fact when we look at all the radiative forcings that contribute to global warming - solar, volcanic, natural aerosols ect.

One source stands out alone - anthropogenic greenhouse gases. source

But is there a clear indication of whether or not it is indeed the direct result of anthropogenic greenhouse gases that are feeding back causing the current warming? Afterall correlation does not equate to causation.
The answer is again a definitive yes.
Enter the theory of global dimming, a little understood theory until - ironically - 9/11.
The ironic ying yet equally dammaging result of the yang global warming.
On 9/11 and the 3 days afterwards US airspace was clear of all air traffic, as a result there were no aircraft contrails.
Surprisingly within each of those three days daily temperature variation jumped by 1.1 degree celcius.
source
So while global warming pulls in one direction, global dimming pulls in the other, yet in those 3 days we saw that when the blinds are open, the temps jumped reflecting that temps should be higher than they actually are. Which supports the exponential causation relationship between anthropogenic greenhouse gas and increasing global temperatures.
YouTube - HORIZON - GLOBAL DIMMING DOCUMENTARY (1/5)


YouTube - HORIZON - GLOBAL DIMMING DOCUMENTARY (2/5)


YouTube - HORIZON - GLOBAL DIMMING DOCUMENTARY (3/5)


YouTube - HORIZON - GLOBAL DIMMING DOCUMENTARY (4/5)


YouTube - HORIZON - GLOBAL DIMMING DOCUMENTARY (5/5)


What then exactly is the relevance of global dimming?
The significance of global dimming is that it's a direct undeniable relationship with human contribution to global temperatures and are the ironic ying result of consumption of fossile fuels. Blocking out solar radiation with our industrial fallout, soot and particulates.


So in combination with the undeniable rise in global temperatures, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, natural greenhouse gases are in equilibrium while anthropogenic contribution is net positive, the direct evidence of anthropogenically induced global dimming, the fact that our orbit around the sun has been unchanged, solar output has remained relatively constant - iow all other forcings are unrelated. The only logical conclusion that can be arrived is in full support of the theory of Anthropogenic global warming.

Anthropogenic global warming is an established scientific fact.

This goes into the argument of whether or not AGW is an established factual consensus within the scientific community.
I could go through the entire boring list of virtually every single major prestigious scientific institution's position in full support of the theory of AGW.
But the written position statement of individuals or groups is completely moot from a scientific perspective. What is of relevance however is that which is published and peer reviewed scientific literature.
In the 30+ years of research, debate and assessment of global warming within scientific peer reviewed published literature there has not been a single paper that disputed the fundamental basis of AGW.
Quote:
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Within the context of scientifically acceptance, there is a scientific consensus that AGW is indeed an established scientific theory - which for all intents and purposes can be viewed upon as fact (ie the theory of gravity).

Now where to go and more importantly how to confront the issue from acknowledgment of this fact is a completely different matter which is not within the scope of this discussion.

I hope the above opening statement has clearly established my position and support of my position and submit to my opponent to engage in debate.

Originally Posted by jfuh

Water vapor is the number one greenhouse gas on our planet both in it's ability to retain or literally reflect solar radiation back onto the planet and the significant quantity/concentration it is within the atmosphere. However water vapor has a very short atmospheric half life and thus poses no long term significance as a greenhouse gas.
Second to water vapor is carbon dioxide - which leads to the very concept of anthropogenic global warming.

Checking numerous sources, scientists attribute water vapor for producing anywhere from 60% to 99% of the greenhouse effect, with most claiming in the 90%+ range.

Let me make one key clarification, there is no argument whatsoever about global warming - there is absolutely no debate whatsoever about global warming - the only debate of relationship is the political debate about anthropogenic global warming.

I would say that there might be little doubt that warming has been steady between about 1980 and 2001, but not necessarily over the last few years. Also, there are many sources that remind us that the late 1930s were equal or slightly warmer. I brought up politicizing climate change in my opening statement because the IPCC has been doing it constantly in their reports. For example, the 2001 report disingenuously chops off 85% of the 1100 year original hockey stick graph just to eliminate the need to add the medieval warming period to it (which was omitted conveniently in other reports). Understand, the power of a graphic presentation where it looks like it was never warmer really gets people thinking (maybe even wrongly).
Medieval Warming Period-Little Ice Age.gif
I will mention more about such deceiving methodology with CO2 below.

In our recent historical past of the geological warmth of the planet has remained relatively constant. Even taking into such events as the little ice age or midevil warm period the earth's climate was in all other accounts stable with greenhouse gases at near constant levels.

co2 vs global temp.jpg
The chart above shows studies that estimate wide variations in CO2 levels during periods where temperature remained relatively steady. Basically, there is no correlation in the CO2 curve to the temperature curve. Now, to read the IPCC reports would make one think that carbon dioxide levels have been constant over the many millenia (except for the "exponential rise" due to the last 100 years of burning fossil fuel). However, there are reports and scientists that contradict such data. Using bad data and ignoring sound data helped to make the hockey stick temperature rise (if one ignores the 1930s and 1940s) match the fabricated hockey stick greenhouse gas rise in the IPCC reports.

The IPCC charts use CO2 proxy measurements that are derived from ice cores to create much of the CO2 curves to make their case that recent increases in atmospheric CO2 comes from our industrialized society. The CO2 samples from ice cores are joined to readings that have been recorded over the last 50 years using modern techniques to determine CO2 levels (at Mauna Loa). The big problem here is that several scientists have determined that CO2 readings from ice cores are more often very inaccurate (especially for older ice cores samples under great pressure). Dr. Abigniew Jaworowski's paper, CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal Of Our Time, fully explains his views, justifies his findings, and is fully referenced. He gives complex, but complete, reasons why the ice core drilling process and pressure/refreezing issues make ice cores unreliable for CO2 proxy measurements.
CO2 curve splicing.jpg
Jaworowski claims that not only does the IPCC use convenient data when it fits the goal of the report, there also was manipulation such as the picture shown above where ice core proxies of CO2 levels were moved 83 years to conveniently coincide cleanly with the Mauna Loa CO2 curve. Jaworowski's article obviously goes against the IPCC reports (politically correct climate science) and he agrees with the Ernst-Georg Beck papers that produce CO2 curves based on chemically derived testing.

Ernst-Georg Beck produced papers in 2006, 180 Years of Accurate CO2-Gas Analysis of Air by Chemical Methods (short version), and in 2007, using the same name (longer version of report), in order to show that scientists had taken very accurate CO2 readings using chemical methods and not by using proxies. Here is the Beck's result showing CO2 readings (using curve smoothing by 5 year average values) compared to the ice core data (unchanging over 150 years) that the IPCC uses:
CO2 1812-2004 NH.jpg
This graph shows that there were many variations of CO2 levels greatly higher than today's so called elevated and catastrophic levels. Even if these chemically determined CO2 readings were substantially off, they show readings of 300 to 420 ppm during times when temperatures were cooler than today's levels. Beck's report also shows where the IPCC reports use selective chemically derived values when they suit their motives but they reject all values that don't contribute to the "man is destroying our planet with CO2 emissions" theory.

However upon the industrial revolution, and the consumption of fossil fuels on a never before seen magnitude, man's contribution to atmospheric composition has become significant.

I will respond to this comment in a further rebuttal. There is documentation that supports the fact that man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is minimal at best (documentation not provided at this time).

It must be made crystal clear. Man is NOT the number 1 contributor of greenhouse gases. Nature is the number one contributor of greenhouse gases orders of magnitude greater than man.
But there is a catch, while nature is the number one contributor of, it is also capable of cleaning up after itself.

I expect to show in the coming days that man's contribution, be it water vapor or CO2, can be cleaned up just as nature's. That is, nature doesn't stop at man's contribution and "leave it on the table", so to speak, if it has the capacity to change it.

Anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases however are not re-captured and sequestered thus resulting in a net increase on top of what nature already produces. It is this net increase that the scientific and environmental community concerns itself with when talking about anthropogenic global warming.

That might not be necessary in order to "save the planet".

What then exactly is the relevance of global dimming?

I expect to comment further on global dimming in the coming days.

So in combination with the undeniable rise in global temperatures, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, natural greenhouse gases are in equilibrium while anthropogenic contribution is net positive, the direct evidence of anthropogenically induced global dimming, the fact that our orbit around the sun has been unchanged, solar output has remained relatively constant - iow all other forcings are unrelated. The only logical conclusion that can be arrived is in full support of the theory of Anthropogenic global warming.

Some scientists believe that temperatures have peaked (not sure that global dimming is the reason at this point) and it could be related to changes in solar output or planetary orbit. Here is one example:
temperature 1980-2007.jpg
Source


I do believe that solar radiation, sunspots, and planetary orientation/orbit variations are not constant and I believe that all contribute greatly to climate change. I will address that in the coming days.

Originally Posted by rebelbuc

Checking numerous sources, scientists attribute water vapor for producing anywhere from 60% to 99% of the greenhouse effect, with most claiming in the 90%+ range.

Yes and this I've already addressed. Water vapor has an extremely short atmospheric half life of but days at most, where as for CO2 it has a half life of 22 years.
Not only that but water vapor is in equilibrium with the environment. Anthropogenic CO2 is NOT - hence the additional effect not a neutral effect. That is where the problem is.

Originally Posted by rebelbuc

I would say that there might be little doubt that warming has been steady between about 1980 and 2001, but not necessarily over the last few years. Also, there are many sources that remind us that the late 1930s were equal or slightly warmer. I brought up politicizing climate change in my opening statement because the IPCC has been doing it constantly in their reports. For example, the 2001 report disingenuously chops off 85% of the 1100 year original hockey stick graph just to eliminate the need to add the medieval warming period to it (which was omitted conveniently in other reports). Understand, the power of a graphic presentation where it looks like it was never warmer really gets people thinking (maybe even wrongly).
Medieval Warming Period-Little Ice Age.gif
I will mention more about such deceiving methodology with CO2 below.

Actually your graph is completely inaccurate.
The NAS has addressed the issue of climate reconstruction and has concluded the same exact as the hockey graph.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Comparison.png
source
In fact when you look at the Hockey stick graph V2.0 that I provided above it is NOT the graph which you alluded to in your OS, but a completely new one that addresses and builds upon the criticisms of the original version with virtually the same results and nearly identical to the conclusion from the National Academy of Sciences report above.

Originally Posted by rebelbuc

co2 vs global temp.jpg
The chart above shows studies that estimate wide variations in CO2 levels during periods where temperature remained relatively steady. Basically, there is no correlation in the CO2 curve to the temperature curve.

Like the graph above, I can not verify the validity of your chart from it's source.
However it seems blatantly deceitful. For starters there is no data that goes back 600 million years ago for carbon dioxide within the atmosphere and global temperatures. The only reliable source is from ice cores and forget 600 million years ago, even 60 million years ago neither Antarctica nor Greenland are where they are today with respect to their geographic positions relative to our current global alignment to Polaris.
So I have high suspicion of the validity and trustworthiness of your graph.
This graph.


Is from ice cores (Nature 453, 379-382 (15 May 2008) | doi:10.1038/nature06949; Received 12 October 2007; Accepted 17 March 2008)

Originally Posted by Abstract of article

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 650,000 years1, 2, 3, 4. Here we present results of the lowest 200 m of the Dome C ice core, extending the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration by two complete glacial cycles to 800,000 yr before present. From previously published data1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and the present work, we find that atmospheric carbon dioxide is strongly correlated with Antarctic temperature throughout eight glacial cycles but with significantly lower concentrations between 650,000 and 750,000 yr before present. Carbon dioxide levels are below 180 parts per million by volume (p.p.m.v.) for a period of 3,000 yr during Marine Isotope Stage 16, possibly reflecting more pronounced oceanic carbon storage. We report the lowest carbon dioxide concentration measured in an ice core, which extends the pre-industrial range of carbon dioxide concentrations during the late Quaternary by about 10 p.p.m.v. to 172–300 p.p.m.v.

Thus the assertion that there is no relationship is clearly bogus.

Originally Posted by rebelbuc

Now, to read the IPCC reports would make one think that carbon dioxide levels have been constant over the many millenia (except for the "exponential rise" due to the last 100 years of burning fossil fuel). However, there are reports and scientists that contradict such data. Using bad data and ignoring sound data helped to make the hockey stick temperature rise (if one ignores the 1930s and 1940s) match the fabricated hockey stick greenhouse gas rise in the IPCC reports.

I've already addressed this. There has been no ignoring of data - the reconstructed graphs from both peer review and original authors using multiple proxies produce the same result.
As for the "constant" CO2

While it fluctuates between several hundred mellenia, when we zoom in on the time scale to within only the last 2~3 mellenia what we see is a virtually flat line until the industrial revolution - coincidentally when superimposed to the hockey stick we see the clear relationship.

Originally Posted by rebelbuc

The IPCC charts use CO2 proxy measurements that are derived from ice cores to create much of the CO2 curves to make their case that recent increases in atmospheric CO2 comes from our industrialized society. The CO2 samples from ice cores are joined to readings that have been recorded over the last 50 years using modern techniques to determine CO2 levels (at Mauna Loa). The big problem here is that several scientists have determined that CO2 readings from ice cores are more often very inaccurate (especially for older ice cores samples under great pressure). Dr. Abigniew Jaworowski's paper, CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal Of Our Time, fully explains his views, justifies his findings, and is fully referenced. He gives complex, but complete, reasons why the ice core drilling process and pressure/refreezing issues make ice cores unreliable for CO2 proxy measurements.
CO2 curve splicing.jpg
Jaworowski claims that not only does the IPCC use convenient data when it fits the goal of the report, there also was manipulation such as the picture shown above where ice core proxies of CO2 levels were moved 83 years to conveniently coincide cleanly with the Mauna Loa CO2 curve. Jaworowski's article obviously goes against the IPCC reports (politically correct climate science) and he agrees with the Ernst-Georg Beck papers that produce CO2 curves based on chemically derived testing.

Yes, his article goes against the IPCC reports using the age old method of lying by ommission.
just because an article "looks" referenced, or seems scientific does not make it a valid scientific article. 21st Century Science and Tech is NOT refereed, thus there is no review of the article by peers and is about as reliable as someone writing on a blog site.
What is interesting is how Jaworowski himself collects data for temperature reconstruction - ice cores. So it seems what Jaworowski is claiming is that everyone else can not collect accurate data except for him.

Originally Posted by rebelbuc

Ernst-Georg Beck produced papers in 2006, 180 Years of Accurate CO2-Gas Analysis of Air by Chemical Methods (short version), and in 2007, using the same name (longer version of report), in order to show that scientists had taken very accurate CO2 readings using chemical methods and not by using proxies. Here is the Beck's result showing CO2 readings (using curve smoothing by 5 year average values) compared to the ice core data (unchanging over 150 years) that the IPCC uses:
CO2 1812-2004 NH.jpg
This graph shows that there were many variations of CO2 levels greatly higher than today's so called elevated and catastrophic levels. Even if these chemically determined CO2 readings were substantially off, they show readings of 300 to 420 ppm during times when temperatures were cooler than today's levels. Beck's report also shows where the IPCC reports use selective chemically derived values when they suit their motives but they reject all values that don't contribute to the "man is destroying our planet with CO2 emissions" theory.

The interesting variable about the graph you have displayed is between the "processed" data and the original raw data. He claims that the raw data of the IPCC's set originally starts out at around 325ppm, yet when it's "processed" suddenly the data drops down to 285 ppm while the data he collected stays at the same level, when all it seems he did was perform an arithmatic averaging of the points. The paper itself seems specious.
Secondly, it's another non-published non-peer reviewed and non-scientific article.

Originally Posted by rebelbuc

I will respond to this comment in a further rebuttal. There is documentation that supports the fact that man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is minimal at best (documentation not provided at this time).

I expect to show in the coming days that man's contribution, be it water vapor or CO2, can be cleaned up just as nature's. That is, nature doesn't stop at man's contribution and "leave it on the table", so to speak, if it has the capacity to change it.

There is a limit, and as we see that Carbon dioxide has been on a very steady increase since the IR it is safe to say that nature is NOT "cleaning" up the excess.

Originally Posted by rebelbuc

That might not be necessary in order to "save the planet".

That is not the argument

Originally Posted by rebelbuc

Some scientists believe that temperatures have peaked (not sure that global dimming is the reason at this point) and it could be related to changes in solar output or planetary orbit. Here is one example:
temperature 1980-2007.jpg
Source
I do believe that solar radiation, sunspots, and planetary orientation/orbit variations are not constant and I believe that all contribute greatly to climate change. I will address that in the coming days.

Your graph is from 1979 to 2008. It conveniently leaves out everything before that.
So when we look at everything before what we get is the following


IT should be emphasized that I have not stated that orbit, solar out put are constant, but that in the last hundred fifty years they've remained relatively constant yet temperatures have changed dramatically, which is why it's rational to rule them out for the causes of our current warming.

Jfuh:
Let me make one key clarification, there is no argument whatsoever about global warming - there is absolutely no debate whatsoever about global warming - the only debate of relationship is the political debate about anthropogenic global warming.

That depends on the time frame studied. One has to define the time frame under study and determine if today’s temperature variations are part of a natural cycle or, rather, we can accept IPCC’s assertion that we are experiencing the beginning of a catastrophic global warming trend.

The IPCC’s debate hinges on CO2 as the trigger that is predicted to cause runaway global warming if left unchecked. However, AGW proponents ignore the possibility that historical CO2 increases are a reaction to global warming rather than a major cause (more about that later).

Jfuh:
Anthropogenic global warming is the theory that man's burning of fossil fuels which generates carbon dioxide increases the net quantity of said gas within the atmosphere.

The typical approach to most studies is to ignore water vapor’s overwhelming responsibility for maintaining our normal levels of greenhouse effect.

Water Vapor - GHG.jpg

Source for Water Vapor Chart
This link is one of many that shows the tremendous effect that adding water vapor to the equation has in reducing the “blame percentage” (my term) that is attributed to man. If you ignore water vapor, then you might point to 5.53% as man’s contribution to the greenhouse effect. That percentage goes down to 0.28% when one rightfully takes water vapor into consideration (which one must to be fair). Now, I know that the AGW-believer response is to say “but IPCC studies do allow for water vapor”. However, I would bet that the worst gloom and doom predictions either minimize the effect of water vapor or ignore it completely – those studies produce the catastrophic claims that the Gores and Hansons of the world use to scare the laymen into attention. While water vapor might not have the half life concerns that some have mentioned, the fact is that it is always there (in varying levels due to weather variations and location).

Dr. Tim Patterson's Link
Dr. Tim Patterson (geologist and paleoclimatologist) states (based on picture below):

1. If CO2 is of such critical importance to climate change why was there a large temperature rise prior to the early 1940s when 80 percent of the human produced carbon dioxide was produced after World War II?
2. When CO2 levels finally began to increase dramatically in the postwar years why was there a concomitant interval of about 30 years of cooling? One would think that if CO2 had such critical control over climate that the relative abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere would be in lock step with global temperature. Many researchers realize the difficulties that are presented by trying to make CO2 the key factor in climate change. As a result there has been renewed research, much of it in the past year or so, into the idea that there really is a connection between variability in solar output and global temperature. [written in 2005]

North American Land Temperature

North American Land Temperature.jpg

Of course, man’s CO2 emissions are said to be more critical than natural CO2 sources, which are supposedly handled naturally by the earth.

Jfuh:
It must be made crystal clear. Man is NOT the number 1 contributor of greenhouse gases. Nature is the number one contributor of greenhouse gases orders of magnitude greater than man.
But there is a catch, while nature is the number one contributor of, it is also capable of cleaning up after itself. So as much as nature releases greenhouse gases it also sequesters said gases contributing a neutral contribution - which is why prior to the industrial revolution greenhouse gases have been relatively constant in concentration.

So, is it true that: (a) man’s contribution to global CO2 is significant when compared to natural sources, and (b) man-made sources to global CO2 somehow are not handled benignly by nature and, instead, remain in the environment for a much longer period?

Tim Paterson’s CO2 breakdown.

Before looking at the geological record of CO2 it is useful to look at a schematic of our current understanding of the carbon cycle. Fossil fuel emissions coming from smokestack industries contribute about 5.5 gigatons (plus or minus 0.5 gigatons), land use changes contribute another 1.6 gigtons (plus or minus 0.7 gigatons), with a certain amount coming back into the biosphere again. About 2 gigatons (plus or minus 0.8 gigatons) of this returning CO2 is taken up by an oceanic sink. On top of this there is a mysterious, unaccounted for sink here of 1.8 gigatons (plus or minus 1.2 gigatons). As you might note there are significant error bars attached to all of these estimates meaning that considerable further research needs to be done on the dynamics of the carbon cycle. The average yearly increase of CO2 in the atmosphere ends up being about 3.3 gigatons of carbon staying in the atmosphere as part of a flux that totals around 730 gigatons.

I included this to show how uncertain the science is that tells us where the CO2 comes from and where it goes. As the author states, more research is warranted before economically strapping steps are taken.

The charts and analysis below question the correlation between CO2 content and temperature.

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels.jpg

Tim Patterson reports:

The bottom chart shows the range of global temperature through the last 500 million years. There is no statistical correlation between the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through the last 500 million years and the temperature record in this interval. In fact, one of the highest levels of carbon dioxide concentration occurred during a major ice age that occurred about 450 million years ago. Carbon dioxide concentrations at that time were about 15 times higher than at present.

What I would like to draw your attention to is the level of CO2 levels, as preserved in prehistoric air bubbles, from very high quality ice core records from Antarctica. When researchers first looked at the results from these cores they observed a repeating correlation between CO2 and temperature through several glacial/interglacial cycles. However, when they began to look at higher resolution cycles they say something different. They observed that temperature would go up first comes up first, with CO2 coming up later. This correlation indicates that as one might expect as temperatures warm biological productivity increases resulting in more CO2 in the atmosphere. The lag between CO2 and rising or falling CO2 levels is something like 800 years.

In conclusion, the geologic record clearly shows us that there really is little correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. Although CO2 can have a minor influence on global temperature the effect is minimal and short lived as this cycle sits on top of the much larger water cycle, which is what truly controls global temperatures. The water cycle is in turn primarily influenced by natural celestial cycles and trends.

Skeptical Science chart
The chart above from skepticalscience.com provides similar, but unsmoothed data as Patterson’s charts above.

Indications are that solar activity is more likely to be the factor that forces temperature trends.
[ATTACH]Sunspots vs. Global Mean SST[/ATTACH]
The chart above shows how sunspot activity tracked well with global mean sea surface temperature for the period studied (1860 – 1980). The second chart in this posting (above) shows similar correlation for North American Land Temperature.

Tim Patterson's article
Again, looking at Tim Patterson’s site, we see his chart below that compares the occurrence of cosmic rays, solar irradiance, and low clouds. Patterson’s explanation, below, shows why solar variability of only 0.1% (i.e. sunspots) can be magnified by the sunspots’ effects on cosmic rays and cloud formation.

[ATTACH]Change in Cloud Fraction[/ATTACH]

Also from Tim Patterson’s link (above):

In summary then we have galactic cosmic rays continually striking the earth. Independent of the cosmic rays striking the solar system the sun is continually going through sunspot cycles. As I mentioned previously, the amount of solar flaring follows the 11-year sun spot cycle, and varies even more through the longer Gleissberg, Suess and Bond solar cycles. The larger the number of flares produced by the sun, the fewer the proportion of cosmic rays that strike the earth, as these flares tend to deflect the cosmic rays.

Thus when cosmic rays are deflected away from the Earth there are fewer clouds, which permits a little bit more secondary radiation to penetrate to the surface. Thus we no longer have the problem caused by solar variability only varying by 0.1% through a sunspot cycle, the change in global cloudiness permits more than ample solar energy through, which can significantly change climate. There is now a viable explanation to explain the great correlation that has been observed between solar records and temperature records. The correlation gets even better through longer-scale solar cycles. For example, the intensity of cosmic rays varies by 15 percent through the 11-year sun spot cycle. At the longer wavelength decadal-scale Gleissberg, centennial-scale Seuss, and millennial-scale Bond cycles the cosmic ray intensity varies by up to four times that much, causing significant changes to the climate.

Jfuh:
The significance of global dimming is that it's a direct undeniable relationship with human contribution to global temperatures and are the ironic ying result of consumption of fossile fuels. Blocking out solar radiation with our industrial fallout, soot and particulates.

Could Global Dimming be related to the possibility that Global Warming of late has not followed the IPCC script? I do not think so. Most recent studies claim that Global Dimming peaked (meaning that it’s influence on reducing Global Warming peaked) likely during the 1980s and definitely by 1990 as industrialized nations like the US, European nations, etc. significantly cleaned up air pollution. Martin Wild’s study investigates this further.

Martin Wild's PowerPoint Presentation

Martin Wild’s Global Dimming Study – 2005:
Wild’s study (see slides below) explains to me why Global Dimming has been largely ignored in most AGW discussions. Wild is certainly not an AGW skeptic by any definition (just check out this presentation), however, he seems to dispel the notion that Global Dimming is presently mitigating the level of anthropogenic CO2 that would have otherwise resulted in the gloom and doom predictions of many IPCC models.

[ATTACH]Insolation Trends[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]Estonia Dimming/Brightening[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]Stockholm Dimming/Brightening[/ATTACH]

Some scientists have attributed late 90s, early 2000+ temperature rises with the cleaning up of the atmosphere that has significantly reduced Global Dimming in many areas.

Let me say that Global Dimming observations over the last few decades has been very valuable in pointing out the great benefit that has come from many industrialized nations taking steps to clean up air pollution (not CO2). Severe air pollution and continued degrees of Global Dimming remain in pockets around the world such as in parts of Asia, but there is no doubt that the clean air act and similar efforts have had a positive effect. I just don’t see that 70s and 80s Global Dimming provides an excuse for poor AGW models.

And, speaking of AGW models:
Douglas Hoyt Comments
This section deals with models that have been used to support IPCC claims. Douglas Hoyt, an accomplished solar physicist and climatologist, presents his insights on the link above. Hoyt’s research indicates that the facts do not support the contention that anthropogenic greenhouse gases (AGHG) are responsible for recent global warming. Among the problems that Hoyt finds with the IPCC’s modeling science, the following items are included in the linked report: the IPCC’s flawed theory that defines radiation and doubling of CO2, incorrect modeling of water vapor feedback, lack of depolarization factor of air with greater CO2 levels, starting modeled sensitivities of climate, and many other cited issues.
Douglas Hoyt Scorecard
Hoyt provides a scorecard that was updated on 4/2/06 (see link above) for model predictions where these models support the idea of AGW. Hoyt uses the win-loss-tie method to rate the various model predictions, where the numbers show that models either (agree)-(disagree)-(remain undetermined) with observed conditions. The AGW models failed miserably with an overall record of 1-27-4 (your great IPCC scientists at work). Below the scorecard, Hoyt examines and comments on various claims where he takes issues. These claims for the most part lead to his opinion that 45% of the measured warming in many areas is actually spurious urban warming and not an indication of true warming of the planet.